Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Defendant(father) has been desperately trying to resolve numerous issues he perceives in his divorce case, in the Circuit Court of Frederick County Maryland, Case: #: 10-C-10-000373. It is the Defendant's perception that attorneys and the judge have acted in ways inconsistent with the notions of equal protection, the right to present evidence, discovery laws, in his divorce case. But the real concern is the suppressed the evidence of cries for help from the child, along with much evidence supporting child abuse, parental alienation, and parentification, by the Plaintiff(mother). This has been compound by the fact that all the attorneys turned on the Defendant once he discovered that the evidence had been suppressed and requested admission of the evidence and a revision to the order. The evidence also includes statements by the Plaintiff that are self contradictory as to her domestic violence claims. The actions of the judge have been similarly out of character for a judicial member, seemingly denying multiple constitutional privileges to the Defendant. The Defendant feels strongly that this was a small town fix up that went way too far. Seemingly highlighting the substantial need for reform to the divorce court process when domestic violence is asserted. The court found that the Defendant did commit domestic violence against the Plaintiff. This finding was concluded without any hard evidence or witness testimony of any kind. There was however testimony that contradicted her claims. The only supporting evidence was an expert witness that was (according ht the Defendant's attorneys) improperly discovered, the day of the hearing. He also had never interviewed the Defendant. Both parties had agreed to and taken a psychological evaluation by Dr Amado, who was chosen by the court appointed BIA. The Defendant's results were better than the Plaintiff's. Therefore the desire to bring in her own expert to contradict the reports. But as we had signed an agreement to the evaluation, the court's decision to admit the testimony of Dr Petrocelli effectively denied the parties right to contract, as well as the discovery laws. The stated reasons for the attorney's actions is that they feel the Defendant has issues with paranoia, and is not safe to be around the child. In spite of him having a psych eval performed with the result stating that he was not a candidate for any such diagnosis and not a danger to his daughter. Their actions seem aggressive to the Defendant. He feels that this may be in retaliation for his coming forward with strong questions as to the appropriateness of the attorney's actions. But the central issue of the problem is the claims and statements of the Defendant and Plaintiff are so opposite that one of us is either lying or delusional. The evidence in the trial supports the Defendant in every claim he made. There exists substantial evidence that contradicts the Plaintiff's claims. There exists no evidence of any kind that supports her claims of abuse. There is evidence that directly contradicts her claims in her own words. Yet the harsh domestic violence statutes were applied, it feels seeming belligerent manor toward the Defendant. The suppressed evidence includes: Evidence of Child Abuse, by Mother. Corroborated by mother, daughter, father, neighbor. Strong Evidence of Parental Alienation by Mother. Many Inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's Testimony. Basically all key claims could be contradicted. Provable contradictions. All items contradict the core to the case, and the judge's findings, in the words of the Plaintiff, CPS investigators and the child. Punishment, for lack of as better word, associated with the domestic violence statutes is allowed to be much harsher that the standard equal distribution of property. As such the burden of proof should be proportionally higher, but in this case it appeared to be relaxed.. 1/13
Misuse of Domestic Violence Statutes Attorney and Court Post Trial Actions
In November 2011 the Defendant discovered substantial proof that during the trial (10 days of hearings from Jun 1st thru August 10th 2011), that his attorneys suppressed evidence, misrepresented evidence, refused to correct the errors, even after the judge made clear issues of items that he had evidence contradicting the core of the courts findings, in the Plaintiff's own words. He felt this was very compelling and needed to be heard. He sent an email to all attorneys, describing what he had found and chiding them for allowing it to occur, and asked for their support in having the evidence heard. He submitted multiple motions containing a request for revisal based on MD Rule 2-535, based on the misconduct, irregularity, mistake, or fraud of his attorneys. In one motion he asked for revision due to fraud upon the court as the attorneys actions were so egregious that they would prevent a court from making a fair ruling, by denying the Defendant the right to be heard, and present evidence. On December 7th 2011, the judge refused to hear any of the Defendants motions, the evidence of his attorney's actions, or his request to consider the suppressed evidence. The court proceeded to allow the BIA and Plaintiffs counsel to use the fact that he discovered and submitted the information about his attorney's actions, and presented it as evidence of him being paranoid, and barred his visitation with his daughter. The court proceeding on June 13th and 14th 2012, appeared to be a continuation of the issue prone proceedings that occurred during the custody hearings. During this hearing the judge again refused to admit evidence that was suppressed by the Defendants attorney that directly contradicted the Plaintiff's claims in her own words, in the writings of the child, and in reports from CPS investigations. This time they barred all contact between father and child. Later modified to enable the child to call the Defendant. The court's and attorneys' actions seem very aggressive, for example the Judge and BIA attempting to get the Defendant to agree to take paranoia medication that his doctors say he does not need and would be harmful to his condition. There were threats of incarceration by Plaintiff's counsel, in response to the Defendant's attempt to retrieve personal items from the home, prior to the Plaintiff moving in, following the judge ordering she have use and possession. They have gone as far as generating a court order barring all contact with his child by the Defendant. The Plaintiff who had previously refused to have their child call the Defendant, did so on two occasions immediately following the order barring all contact, leaving messages. The Defendant is concerned by the actions of the Judge and the BIA, as they do not appear to offer any reasonable improvement in the safety or wellbeing of the child. Additionally their requests could potentially have very negative effects on the Defendants health and legal efficacy in his custody case as well as any other actions that may arise due to the legal faux pas that have occurred. The BIA had stated strong support for the Defendant having full legal custody before and during the custody hearing. The attitude change in the BIA began following the Defendants discovery of irregularities by his attorneys, who had suppressed significant evidence and testimony that prevented the court from being able to render an unbiased decision. The Defendants attorneys refused to correct errors or even submit evidence to the court regarding the gross mischaracterizations of reality in the courts opinion., i.e, the definition of fraud upon the court. This, if proven, is so egregious it invalidates the entire proceed
2/13
Items of concern
Number one concern: A father and daughter are being driven apart, with no legal basis, but full support of the court. The appearance of favoritism in the court, resulting in suppression of evidence of child abuse and blatant alienation. A childs own requests for help, was met with the response: I know your mother and she would not do something like that. CPS investigation report provides corroboratory statements from the child, mother, and father that the abuse occurred.. The child s story was found credible by CPS. There are far more details, their actions were malicious in the Defendants eyes. In what altered realty does this occur? Second concern: The domestic abuse statutes were misapplied in what seems to be an egregious small town fixed case. The Judge appears to have denied many state laws and constitutional privileges appearing to at with ill will toward the Defendant. Application of the domestic violence statute in the face of no supporting evidence seems to go beyond denying constitutional right to equal protection, to appearing to block it as well as deny his right to submit evidence, and be heard. The courts refusal to hear evidence but make judgements against the Defendant based on his reaction to the many wrong odd actions during the trial, by his attorneys. Third Concern: The fact that on June 13th 2012, Ms Conklyn and Judge Stepler were trying to get the Defendant to agree to take medication for paranoia, seemed inappropriate given the testimony it was based on was the opinion of a doctor that had never examined the Defendant. This testimony from Dr Petrocelli was objected to, due to the lack of notice (inappropriate discovery) and foundation for his opinion, as he had never interviewed the Defendant nor had the background data. Dr Petrocelli had not been given the data that had lead to the Defendant's concerns. So to declare someone needs treatment without ever having interviewed the person or having the data that the person stated caused his concern seems reckless. The judge ignored the psychological evaluation report of Dr David Fago that stated he was not a candidate for these types of medications or diagnosis, and is not a threat to his daughter. This appears to the defendant to be far beyond inappropriate.
3/13
So the fundamental question is (metaphorically), if someone pokes you in the eye, and while your holding your eye she sees you cant see and states your honor he cannot see, he must be blind. Will you find him guilty of
5/13
6/13
8/13
9/13
The list below contains the messages between the Defendant and his attorneys related to the topic of getting evidence submitted vs submitting a Judicial Disabilities complaint. I consistently and persistently requested the inclusion of the financial data. Once the Judges opinion was revealed it made clear issue if an easily provable false theory that the Defendant controlled the Plaintiff financially. Her credit card receipts showed an average monthly expenditure of over $7500.00 per month. The judge found that I had the power in the relationship. Her spending clearly says otherwise. This law firm refused to submit evidence and avoided requests and demands. This string of emails shows that failure clearly. The Defendant also believes that it showed intent to avoid the clients wishes, ass well as pushing the agenda of the judicial disabilities complaint. The Defendant feels that if their actions are found intentional then they have omitted fraud upon the court and billing fraud, as they were offering services under the guise of representation his best interest but intentionally failed to do so. Below is the communication relating to the idea of filing a complaint with the Judicial Disabilities Communication. Given the post trial behavior, evidence submission shortfalls, and lack of protection for financial position, of the attorneys the Defendant feels the intention s clear. August 26, 2011- 5:52PM: Ms Lynch Defendant, Ms Rismiller Your cause of action is with the Judicial Disabilities Commission. ... August 31, 2011- 9:51AM: Ms Rismiller Defendant, Ms Lynch To follow up on our conversation this morning, here is the link to the information for the 11/13
September 2, 2011 8:32 AM: Ms Lynch Defendant when you get a chance. Donna is headed to court, but we have discussed your emails, and I need to discuss your requests with you. September 6 2011 11:32 AM: Ms Lynch Defendant, Ms Rismiller Good morning, I have attached a draft of the Statement of Facts for the Judicial Disability 12/13
The indented messages were on the same thread, which was initiated by the Defendant asking for the credit card data to be presented to the court. In the Sept 1st 11:29 AM, 12:33 and 12:34 messages to both of them clearly re-requests the motion be generated. They ignored all three messages, as they failed to produce. Further they seem fixated on the Judicial Disabilities complaint. Why? Ernest Seagraves, Virginia Resident ernest.seagraves@gmail.com (240) 344-2256
13/13